gpart -b 34 versus gpart -b 1024

[Edho P Arief]

On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 12:37 PM, Adam Vande More <amvandemore at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Dan Langille <dan at langille.org> wrote:
>
>>       -------Sequential Output-------- ---Sequential Input-- --Random--
>>       -Per Char- --Block--- -Rewrite-- -Per Char- --Block--- --Seeks---
>>    GB M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU M/sec %CPU  /sec %CPU
>>    50 110.5 81.0 112.8 15.0  62.8  9.0  72.9 48.5 139.7  9.5   144  0.9
>>
>> Here, the results aren't much better either...  am I not aligning this
>> partition correctly?  Missing something else?  Or... are they both 4K block
>> aligned?
>
>
> The alignment doesn't apply to all drives, just the 4k WD's and some ssd's.
>
> If they were misaligned, you would see a large difference in the tests.  A
> few points one way or other in these is largely meaningless.
>
> That being said, if I were you I would set -b 2048(1 MB) as the default, the
> amount of space wasted is trivial and your partition will always be
> aligned.  People following your tutorials may have a variety of different
> drives and that setting is safe for all.
>

shouldn't it start at 2049? Starting at 2048 means it starts at 2048th
logical block which is 512 bytes off from physical block, doesn't it?


-- 
O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org